+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph (/showthread.php?tid=225)
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - DHLawrence - 09-27-2016
(09-26-2016, 03:56 PM)Markster Wrote: I'd really settle for a regular, sane bus transit connection between the two first.
Three. Something running from the Sportsworld area would have been a godsend when I was studying at Guelph.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - danbrotherston - 09-27-2016
(09-26-2016, 03:23 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: dan, "It *is* more convenient because we've *made* it so. But investing in roads, and *not* transit for the past 70 years."
No, its inherently more convenient in many use cases. Especially in a country like Canada. It's also significantly more efficient (including when looking at environmental cost) in a lot of situations. A small vehicle that you can take almost anywhere you want to go will always be more efficient for certain use cases than mass transit that requires a large fixed infrastructure.
And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a public transit option between KW and Guelph. Regular buses and improved GO service would be pretty good starts and meet a large portion of the need for transit.
As for not needing the new highway 7 - that doesn't match with what I see.
Edit: It's been awhile since I've looked at numbers. I'm certainly open to seeing them and hearing the argument for why we don't need the new highway.
Yes, it's more convenient for some use cases, but almost universally, not the use cases where we've actually invested in building huge roads. Small rural areas are easier to access by car, because they're sparsely populated and visited, but in those areas, we haven't invested in building enormous subdivisions or massive freeways. By definition.
Area's where we have invested, should have also had transit investment, but they haven't. But there's no reason to continue making that mistake over and over again. And yet, in some places, we continue to do so.
I'm not sure if the Guelph highway is one of them, but I sure would have liked to see a reasonable transit option tried first.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - mpd618 - 09-27-2016
Politically the Highway 7 project is a huge deal and it's already well underway.
I feel like these discussions assume that politicians ignore the effect of induced demand, but in the case of a highway like this one, I think it's part of the point. Not the sprawl in between necessarily, but the increased travel between KW and Guelph is very much the point. It's viewed as an improvement to the local economy through increased economic connections and access.
Personally I'd like to see a local iXpress-style route along the current Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph to build demand and connect some of the employment areas and the downtowns. This would be a more local service to complement the eventual intercity transit by GO/VIA. But if the demand is there, and car traffic has the option of a new Highway 7, the Victoria/Highway 7/Woodlawn corridor can easily spare the space for an interurban LRT.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - SammyOES2 - 09-27-2016
Dan, the thing is we need links between the areas that can't (right now) be served well with transit. And those links make sense as highways.
Again, that's not to say all highways make sense. It's just that your core point is in no way sufficient as an argument against building a highway.
And the new highway 7 isn't taking away transit options. Any reasonable transit option right now is still possible (and I think everyone is in agreement it should be done). That includes buses and improving the existing train service. But it makes no sense to me to say we should delay the highway because we didnt try transit first. There are no transit options in the short-medium term that could solve the problem.
I'll also add that a new highway 7 should help with transit options. Sending a bus along that highway would be a lot better in a lot of cases then sending it down the current highway 7 (although that might still be nice to serve people along that route).
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - jamincan - 09-27-2016
What were the transit options between Cambridge and Kitchener prior to GRT? I wonder if the lack of transit links between Guelph and KW is an interjurisdictional issue more than anything else.
For transit services that are still primarily subsidized by tax payers, servicing areas outside the local transit area is much harder to justify, no matter how beneficial it may be to local users. Politically, I can only see it working as a joint service between GRT and Guelph Transit, but it would require negotiating how cost sharing would work, which requires someone taking the initiative and driving the project, with little to gain politically.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - danbrotherston - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 06:05 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Dan, the thing is we need links between the areas that can't (right now) be served well with transit. And those links make sense as highways.
Again, that's not to say all highways make sense. It's just that your core point is in no way sufficient as an argument against building a highway.
And the new highway 7 isn't taking away transit options. Any reasonable transit option right now is still possible (and I think everyone is in agreement it should be done). That includes buses and improving the existing train service. But it makes no sense to me to say we should delay the highway because we didnt try transit first. There are no transit options in the short-medium term that could solve the problem.
I'll also add that a new highway 7 should help with transit options. Sending a bus along that highway would be a lot better in a lot of cases then sending it down the current highway 7 (although that might still be nice to serve people along that route).
Why do you say we need new links? There *are* already links between these regions, the new Highway 7 follows old highway 7. The only difference is an increase in capacity. And, if we ignore economic development for a second, the reason you argue for building the highway is increased capacity. The reason you say that transit won't help is because it serves some places which can't effectively be served by transit, that's true. But just because some areas can't be served by transit, doesn't mean nobody can. Surely some people drive from downtown Kitchener to downtown Guelph, or within a reasonable distance of either. Those areas *can* be served. So if you built transit, *some* people would use it, and those people would no longer be using highway 7. Thus those who can't be easily served by transit would still be able to use highway 7, but with less other people competing for the limited space.
Now, I said this in an earlier comment so it seems we're just talking in circles now.
As for economic development, @mpd618 is absolutely right, but I feel like this highway is here to induce growth, that's a main economic driver that highways bring. This is my whole problem with the development. It isn't smart growth, it's traditional sprawl oriented, suburban growth, which can never be served by transit, and is only going to serve to be the "well we need to build a road because you can't serve with transit" argument later.
If capacity was actually the issue, adding transit, and widening existing highway 7 would be more than sufficient to meet that need.
Obviously, this whole discussion is academic, the highway is in progress, and will be built. Not arguing about that, obviously. But it isn't academic for a number of other highways in the province which we might build, like the mid-peninsula highway, or the greenbelt highway.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - SammyOES2 - 09-27-2016
Dan, I think you're missing my point.
If we accept that cars are necessary (or at least significantly more efficient) in a lot of cases - then we absolutely need to have infrastructure that allows them to be used. The mere presence of a road isn't enough to be considered a link between two places. It needs to be a road that has the capacity to serve the demand. So saying something like "the only difference is an increase in capacity" seems kind of silly to me. That can be a very meaningful difference.
If you want to claim that adding transit will solve the short-medium term capacity issue on highway 7 (possibly w/ widening the existing highway 7), I'm open to listening to that argument if backed up by numbers. But it certainly doesn't match my thinking of the situation (for all of the reasons I've outlined before).
And once again, NOBODY is saying we shouldn't have transit. You're the one trying to make this an either/or thing. And I don't think its reasonable to say that building new highway 7 will hurt long term transit options between KW/Guelph. We already have long term plans to significantly improve options between the cities. I don't even really understand what the transit option is you'd like to see - that isn't already happening and that isn't already possible now (like adding buses). Building a new rail link? We already have one, why would we build a new one? Improving the existing one? They're already working on that.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - MidTowner - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 10:10 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: If we accept that cars are necessary (or at least significantly more efficient) in a lot of cases - then we absolutely need to have infrastructure that allows them to be used. The mere presence of a road isn't enough to be considered a link between two places. It needs to be a road that has the capacity to serve the demand. So saying something like "the only difference is an increase in capacity" seems kind of silly to me. That can be a very meaningful difference.
How could we accept that cars are significantly more efficient in a lot of cases? We’re talking about populated areas here- cars are wildly less efficient in terms of space and energy and all-in costs than transit. And, of course, we know that creating more capacity is a mug’s game- the capacity will induce the extra demand needed to congest it. And we know that highway expansions like this one encourage sprawl, which is costly and inefficient in all kinds of ways.
We probably can’t have good transit between Guelph and KW with the predominant development patterns in both cities. It’ll take time to change that pattern, and maybe it won’t happen until it really has to. So it’s true that the highway is certainly needed given existing development patterns and the massive car dependency in both cities.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - SammyOES2 - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 10:37 AM)MidTowner Wrote: How could we accept that cars are significantly more efficient in a lot of cases? We’re talking about populated areas here- cars are wildly less efficient in terms of space and energy and all-in costs than transit. And, of course, we know that creating more capacity is a mug’s game- the capacity will induce the extra demand needed to congest it. And we know that highway expansions like this one encourage sprawl, which is costly and inefficient in all kinds of ways.
We probably can’t have good transit between Guelph and KW with the predominant development patterns in both cities. It’ll take time to change that pattern, and maybe it won’t happen until it really has to. So it’s true that the highway is certainly needed given existing development patterns and the massive car dependency in both cities.
We're not just talking about densely populated areas here. And that's the point. We're talking about a link between a lot of areas that will not be served well by transit for the foreseeable future.
And once again, there's no new sprawl being encouraged here. The areas served by the new highway 7 will be developed almost exactly the same regardless of if the new highway 7 is built or not - because new growth has to happen and the area between KW/Guelph has long been identified as a place its going to happen.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - Viewfromthe42 - 09-27-2016
Anywhere there is an interchange or nearby access to one for this highway, you will see development of suburbs in little time. Breslau will likely see a decent puff of expansion.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - danbrotherston - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 11:21 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: We're not just talking about densely populated areas here. And that's the point. We're talking about a link between a lot of areas that will not be served well by transit for the foreseeable future.
You're conflating two issues. You claimed that some areas are better to serve with cars. This is true, for very sparse rural areas, there isn't enough demand for transportation to serve with mass transit. Guelph and Kitchener are not sparse rural areas, their medium sized cities.
Now you claim that transit isn't an option because they're not well suited to them, but that isn't an inherent feature of the area, it is an intentional design choice we made. And one we're continuing to make. You're arguing, we must build a road, because we forced ourselves to build it years ago. We're arguing, we should stop forcing our future selves to build more roads. Which is on to your next point.
(09-27-2016, 11:21 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: And once again, there's no new sprawl being encouraged here. The areas served by the new highway 7 will be developed almost exactly the same regardless of if the new highway 7 is built or not - because new growth has to happen and the area between KW/Guelph has long been identified as a place its going to happen.
This is cart before the horse argument here, the highway enables a specific type of development, and the lack of transit prevents other types. This causes us to build more unsustainable sprawl. This has been true around highway developments across the province, the country, and beyond, and through time, since we started building highways.
To suggest that the highway will have no effect on what's built is vastly oversimplifying things. It might be that if we built nothing, those sprawling developments would get built and we'd be forced to build a highway anyway. But if we built transit instead, something different might get built, or if we built nothing, as before, those developments might not get built because people don't want to be stuck on old highway 7. We cannot know, but it is clear building a highway and not building transit, definitely does continue the pattern of development that got us here.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - SammyOES2 - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 11:25 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Anywhere there is an interchange or nearby access to one for this highway, you will see development of suburbs in little time. Breslau will likely see a decent puff of expansion.
But my point is that Breslau is getting a huge puff of expansion, and thats happening with/without the highway. The growth plan for Breslau for the next 25 years is set and was put in motion long before the highway became a reality.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - SammyOES2 - 09-27-2016
Dan, I'm going to try to avoid rehashing stuff.
"You're conflating two issues. You claimed that some areas are better to serve with cars. This is true, for very sparse rural areas, there isn't enough demand for transportation to serve with mass transit. Guelph and Kitchener are not sparse rural areas, their medium sized cities."
I don't believe "very sparse rural areas" are the only places where mass transit doesn't make sense. I'd even go so far as saying that there are a lot of areas where mass transportation makes sense for specific use cases (like commuting to/from work) but where it doesn't make sense to build out enough transit to remove the need for cars entirely. And the reality is large portions of medium sized cities fall into this category. Like I said, I lived in NYC and still owned a car because it was necessary for certain things I wanted to do. And it would definitely NOT have been an efficient idea to try to build general mass transit to cover my use cases.
"or if we built nothing, as before, those developments might not get built because people don't want to be stuck on old highway 7. We cannot know,"
These are the kind of statements that lead me to believe you're not actually familiar with the situation we're talking about. Do you have any idea the development that's already happened in the area? It started happening long before the new highway 7 was anywhere close to a reality. We can (And do!) generally know what would happen growth wise in this area. It doesn't take a crystal ball.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - tomh009 - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 11:25 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Anywhere there is an interchange or nearby access to one for this highway, you will see development of suburbs in little time. Breslau will likely see a decent puff of expansion.
Only if the zoning allows it -- which really means that it also needs to fit into the (relevant) regional master plan for development.
It's not 1816 any more so settlements can't just "pop up" anywhere without appropriate planning permission, interchange or not.
RE: Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph - danbrotherston - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 12:10 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Dan, I'm going to try to avoid rehashing stuff.
"You're conflating two issues. You claimed that some areas are better to serve with cars. This is true, for very sparse rural areas, there isn't enough demand for transportation to serve with mass transit. Guelph and Kitchener are not sparse rural areas, their medium sized cities."
I don't believe "very sparse rural areas" are the only places where mass transit doesn't make sense. I'd even go so far as saying that there are a lot of areas where mass transportation makes sense for specific use cases (like commuting to/from work) but where it doesn't make sense to build out enough transit to remove the need for cars entirely. And the reality is large portions of medium sized cities fall into this category. Like I said, I lived in NYC and still owned a car because it was necessary for certain things I wanted to do. And it would definitely NOT have been an efficient idea to try to build general mass transit to cover my use cases.
Yes, but read the rest of what I said. The places like suburban areas of Guelph which do not support effective transit are that way by design, not by geography. Anywhere there are lots of people living, we *could* use transit, or we can build in a way which makes transit difficult or impossible and provide ONLY for cars. The latter is what we've done. The point is, it's our choices which have lead to car dependent areas, not the geography, any area with a moderate number of people could support effective transit, if we made the choice to make it a priority. By building a freeway and NOT providing transit, we are doing the same thing that's gotten us into the situation you're using to argue to build the road in the first place.
Fifty years from now, there are going to be two people on the internet, discussing whether or not to build a highway to Elora (or somewhere), and they're going to be arguing how the Guelph/KW metro area needs a highway because all the people who live in the suburbs between the cities can't get effective transit. Unless we actually make a choice to develop differently.
The two things you're conflating are areas which we've chosen to make car dependent, and areas which simply don't support transit by virtue of sparsity.
A city like Guelph would support effective transit, no problem, go visit a hundred similar places in Europe. I've been in cities in Europe which were built after Guelph which still support better transit options.
(09-27-2016, 12:10 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: "or if we built nothing, as before, those developments might not get built because people don't want to be stuck on old highway 7. We cannot know,"
These are the kind of statements that lead me to believe you're not actually familiar with the situation we're talking about. Do you have any idea the development that's already happened in the area? It started happening long before the new highway 7 was anywhere close to a reality. We can (And do!) generally know what would happen growth wise in this area. It doesn't take a crystal ball.
I'm familiar with Breslau, I looked at a house there, but on the drive back on Victoria St. I figured I wouldn't want to spend my life doing that.
But I'm not talking about Breslau, that's relatively close to KW, it's accessed by Victoria, and Fairway now. I'm talking about the 15 km between Breslau and Guelph. Expect 15 km of housing tracts to go in, suburban sprawl all the way from Guelph to KW. This is what I think the highway will bring.